From The New York Times:

In their quest to rid cleaning products of toxic chemicals, consumer advocates have now set their sights on Tide, the best-selling laundry detergent.

Last fall, the environmental groupWomen’s Voices for the Earth commissioned laboratory tests on 20 cleaning products and found what it described as problematic levels of 1,4 dioxane, a solvent, in Tide Free & Gentle (fragrance free) and Tide Original Scent, said Erin Switalksi, the group’s executive director. Smaller amounts of the chemical were found in Bounce Free & Sensitive (fragrance free), dryer sheets that are used to reduce static.

Small amounts of 1,4 dioxane are formed during the manufacturer of detergents, shampoos and certain drugs. The Environmental Protection Agency considers the chemical a probable carcinogen.

Ms. Switalski said her group had relayed its concerns to Procter & Gamble, the manufacturer, and that a group of advocacy organizations had done so as well, demanding action. “Tide Free and Gentle is marketed to moms as a healthier choice for babies,” she said, adding, “Our perspective is that it doesn’t need to be in there.”

But Procter & Gamble officials say that the levels of 1,4 dioxane in their products are minuscule and well within generally accepted safety guidelines. “We are many, many levels of magnitude below the levels that are considered any level of safety risk,” said Tim Long, a toxicologist for the company.

Procter & Gamble does not plan to reformulate the products based on the recent testing. However, Mr. Long said the company has been working for decades to reduce or eliminate even trace elements of 1,4 dioxane and other toxic chemicals in its products and continue to do so.

One difficulty is that the federal government has not published a definite limit for what constitutes a safe level of 1,4 dioxane in consumer products. In March, the Environmental Protection Agency identified 83 chemicals for further assessment under the Toxic Substances Control Act, and 1,4 dioxane was on the list.

In addition, the E.P.A. allows no more than 100 parts per million of 1,4 dioxane for a product to be eligible for its Design for the Environmentprogram, a labeling program intended to highlight safe cleaning and household programs.

The Women’s Voices for the Earth’s lab testing found 89 parts per million of 1,4 dioxane in Tide Free & Gentle, 63 parts per million in Tide Original Scent and less than 1 part per million in the Bounce product, Ms. Switalksi said.

Procter & Gamble official said the amounts were so low that they had not warranted the government’s full attention. They pointed out, for instance, that while the Food and Drug Administration has not set a limit for 1,4 dioxane, it considers current levels in cosmetics are permissible.

But Ms. Switalski said the uncertainty underscores why Procter & Gamble should remove the chemical from its products. “We don’t fully understand how much 1,4 dioxane is needed to give someone cancer,” she said, arguing that the levels might be different for infants and people who are sick. “For us, the bottom line is that Tide and Tide Free and Gentle are contaminated products.”

In the last several years, independent laboratory tests have become a common tool for consumer groups seeking to pressure the companies to reformulate consumer products.

In 2010, Procter & Gamble reformulated its Herbal Essence line of shampoos so that they carried no more than 10 parts per million of 1,4 dioxane, which company official said was part of an overall effort to reduce or eliminate the chemical from its products.

And last year, Johnson & Johnson said it was reformulating its baby productsto remove phthalates and to reduce 1,4-dioxane in baby shampoos.

We will keep you updated of any regulatory changes.

From the office of the Federal Register:

The US EPA has published 19 premanufacture notices (PMNs) and ten notices of commencement (NOCs) for new chemicals. Section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires any person who intends to manufacture (defined by statute to include import) a new chemical (i.e., a chemical not on the TSCA Chemical Substances Inventory (TSCA Inventory)) to notify EPA and comply with the statutory provisions pertaining to the manufacture of new chemicals. Under TSCA sections 5(d)(2) and 5(d)(3), EPA is required to publish in the Federal Register a notice of receipt of a premanufacture notice (PMN) or an application for a test marketing exemption (TME), and to publish in the Federal Register periodic status reports on the new chemicals under review and the receipt of notices of commencement (NOC) to manufacture those chemicals. This document, which covers the period from February 20, 2012 to February 29, 2012, and provides the required notice and status report, consists of the PMNs pending or expired, and the NOC to manufacture a new chemical that the Agency has received under TSCA section 5 during this time period.

For more information click here.

From Heartland.org:

Efforts to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act could end up harming human health by stifling innovation and keeping perfectly safe and beneficial products from reaching consumers, concludes a just-released study by the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Changes Would Stifle Innovation

“Changes to TSCA are highly unlikely to have any measurable positive effect on public health, given the scant evidence that the trace-level substances that TSCA regulates have any significant health impacts,” said Angela Logomasini, director of risk studies at CEI, in a press release accompanying the study.“Rather, a stronger TSCA law may harm human well-being by leading to bans on many valuable products, undermining innovation, and diverting resources from valuable enterprises to meet burdensome regulatory mandates.”

TCSA Balances Costs, Benefits

Enacted in 1976, TSCA is designed to regulate chemicals not covered by other environmental statutes. TSCA also differs from other environmental laws in setting a risk-based standard for allowing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate chemicals.

TSCA “also demands that the agency consider both cost-benefit considerations and potentially adverse outcomes of its regulatory actions,” noted Logomasini. “Under TSCA, EPA is allowed to regulate when the agency finds that a chemical poses ‘an unreasonable risk to health or the environment.’ Once that determination has been made, EPA must apply such restrictions ‘to the extent necessary to protect adequately against such risk, using the least burdensome requirements.’”

Precise Language Drives Success

The CEI study, “The Real Meaning of TSCA ‘Modernization’: The Shift from Science-based Standards to Over-Precaution,” warns “reforming” TSCA may transform the law into the antithesis of what it was created to do.

Because TSCA has a risk-based approach to regulation, the carefully crafted language of TSCA has generally avoided creating controversies like those that have surrounded the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and other more loosely worded laws. Weakening the statute’s scientific safeguards could bestow EPA with far-reaching discretionary power to regulate as it sees fit, the study warns, which will dramatically change the intended nature of the law.

“Contrary to many claims,” the study explains, “the EPA has managed to use [the TSCA] to impose thousands of regulations, collect substantial data under both mandatory and voluntary programs, and demand testing of chemicals.”

Activists Seek Presumption of Guilt

Ironically, it is the clear and carefully tailored language of the TSCA that has frustrated environmental activists and prompted them to pressure the Obama administration to call for “modernizing” the statute. Richard Dennison of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), for example, advocates a “presumed guilty until proven innocent” approach to a restructured TSCA.

On the legislative front, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) introduced a bill in 2009 to, in his words, “put the burden of chemical safety where it belongs: on the chemical companies.” Lautenberg’s bill was not enacted, but that hasn’t kept environmental activists from urging Congress to scrap TSCA’s current risk-based standard for a more speculative “precautionary” approach.

“Some would model the new rule after the ‘reasonable certainty of no harm’ standard set in the Food Quality Protection Act, which has produced a host of unnecessary bans and regulations on valuable products that are used to ensure affordable food production and control of dangerous pests,” Logomasini explained.

Where Is the Need?

“Where is the evidence that we, the people, need to be protected from environmental exposure to tiny amounts of chemicals?” asks Gilbert Ross, M.D., medical director of the New York-based American Council for Science and Health.

“The cries for ‘reform’ emanate from the same environmental activist groups that oppose so many other beneficial chemicals and technologies,” Ross continued. “These well-funded groups, whose raison d’etre is to foment regulation and litigation, say the law is creaking at age 36, and only a handful of chemicals have been regulated under its auspices. Talk about circular logic—the chemicals assessed have been found to be safe, so they say something must be wrong with the law!”

We will keep you informed about any changes to the TSCA.

From Environment Maine:

Reflecting a bipartisan consensus, Maine legislative leaders introduced a joint resolution today calling on Congress to modernize the federal Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976. Maine moms, dads, businesses, and health care providers have heightened their call for reform of the chemical safety law that they say is obsolete and fails to assure parents that the products they use and purchase are free from dangerous chemicals that threaten the health of their families.

“We’re thrilled that Maine leaders have united to send this life-saving message to Congress,” said Mike Belliveau, President of the Environmental Health Strategy Center. “They chose to stand with Maine moms and doctors working to pass the Safe Chemicals Act, not the chemical industry that’s opposed. We need Senators Snowe and Collins to forge a bipartisan fix to our broken chemical safety system.”

President Kevin Raye sponsored the joint resolution (SP 679) with bipartisan support from legislative leadership, including Senate Minority Leader Barry Hobbins, Speaker Robert Nutting, House Minority Leader Emily Cain, and top members of the Environment and Natural Resources Committee. The joint resolution follows editorial support from five state newspapers calling on Senators Snowe and Collins to co-sponsor the Safe Chemicals Act (S. 847). The federal bill will be voted on in Committee at the end of April, and on the floor of the U.S. Senate soon thereafter.

A new poll released today sought to discover what likely Maine voters want in a U.S. Senate candidate when it comes to the environment and public health. Ninety two percent said it was important for the U.S. government to require safer chemicals in consumer products. The NRDC Action Fund and Environment Maine sponsored the poll of 841 likely Maine voters, which was conducted March 27-28 by Public Policy Polling, a research firm based in North Carolina.

Emily Figdor, Director of Environment Maine, remarked: “There’s overwhelming public and political support in Maine for safer products. The consumer product companies want federal reform too; the only ones standing in the way are corporations like Dow Chemical and ExxonMobil Chemical. We need Senators Snowe and Collins to stand up to the chemical companies and be heroes in the U.S. Senate.”

The Safe Chemicals Act would require chemical companies to demonstrate the safety of their products, while filling gaps in health and safety information provided to the public. The Act requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to use the best available science to protect pregnant women and children from all sources of exposure to a toxic chemical. The legislation also rewards businesses that innovate to develop safer chemicals and products, which supporters say would be good for Maine’s economy.

Additional details can be found here.

From Fox News:

Hunters are up in arms over an Arizona-based conservation group latest bid to get the federal government to ban lead bullets, which the environmentalists claim contaminates the food chain.

The Center for Biological Diversity, which claims 220,000 members, has sent a petition  to the Environmental Protection Agency on behalf of nearly 100 groups in 35 states asking the agency to regulate lead right out of ammunition. It’s the second time the group has attempted to get the EPA to take up the cause, and the group is currently suing the federal agency for rejecting the previous bid.

Hunting groups scoff at the Center’s claims that lead left in the carcasses of animals they shoot but don’t collect harms the food chain and that spent casings can contaminate groundwater. They say the group has long sought to curb their rights to hunt and own firearms.

“They are like a woodpecker without any wood. They just keep pecking away,” Lawrence Keane of the National Shooting Sports Foundation told FoxNews.com. “It’s clear that their motivation is to end hunting in the United States.”

The environmental group claims the EPA has jurisdiction over bullets through the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act. But an EPA spokesman told FoxNews.com the agency denied the previous petition because the agency does not share the opinion it has legal authority over bullets and shotgun pellets.

Keane, who noted that the environmental group’s original petition did not exempt police officers or military personnel from using lead bullets, applauded the EPA for understanding its role.

“Regulating ammunition for hunting is simply not in the EPA’s sandbox,” said Keane

Officials at the Center for Biological Diversity, a 501(c)3 organization that took in just under $8 million in 2010, declined to comment to FoxNews.com. But earlier this week, spokesman Jeff Miller released a statement outlining the group’s case.

“The unnecessary poisoning of eagles, condors and other wildlife is a national tragedy that the EPA can easily put an end to,” Miller said. “There are safe, available alternatives to lead ammo for all hunting and shooting sports, so there’s no reason for this poisoning to go on.

“This isn’t about hunting — it’s about switching to nontoxic materials to stop preventable lead poisoning,” Miller said.

Keane disputed the claim that lead bullets are a threat to anything other than what they are fired at.

“There’s no sound science that show lead ammunition having an impact on wildlife population,” said Keane, adding that the firearms industry pays a federal excise tax of 11 percent on ammunition, which goes to wildlife conservation programs.

Last month, Rep.Jeff Miller (R-Fla.) has recently authored a bill called the Sportsmen’s Heritage Act of 2012 which places protections on hunting, fishing and shooting. The bill would clarify that materials commonly used in hunting and fishing fall outside the scope of the EPA’s enforcement of the Toxic Substances Control Act.

“Most of our fish and wildlife habitat can be attributed to the taxes paid by the firearms, ammunition and sport fishing tackle industries through sportsmen,” Miller told FoxNews.com. “Ammunition prices are already on the rise and imposing a ban on traditional ammunition and fishing tackle would result in considerable reductions in the number of sportsmen participating in the outdoors, and funding the future of our fish and wildlife habitat.”

We will keep you informed with future updates.

From: California Department of Pesticide Regulation

On January 11, 2011, U.S. EPA released a document entitled, “Determining if a Cleaning Product is a Pesticide Under FIFRA.” U.S. EPA provided examples of cleaning claims it considers to be non-pesticidal, including “cleans or removes stains from algae, mold, mildew or other non-public health organisms.” Products with such claims do not require registration with U.S. EPA.

Effectively immediately, DPR considers labeling claims to control, prevent, mitigate, clean and/or remove (or words meaning the same thing) “mold,” mildew,” “algae,” “fungus” or other organisms to be pesticidal claims. Products with such claims require registration with both U.S. EPA and DPR.

Product labeling claims to control or prevent, (or words meaning the same thing) “mold stains,” “mildew stains,” “algae stains,” “fungal stains” or stains from other organisms are also pesticidal. Products with such claims must be registered with both U.S. EPA and DPR prior to sale and use. The use of the word “control” implies growth which can only take place if the organism itself is present. Similarly, a stain can only be “prevented” by controlling the organism that causes the stain.

Click on the above link for a document outlining the new DPR policy.

From the EPA:

Sanders Wood Products Company in Liberal, Oregon was found to have a series of PCB leaks and other violations of federal PCB laws at its lumber mill, according to a settlement reached with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The company will pay over $108,000 in penalties.

“There are clear standards for how to manage toxic chemicals like PCBs so they don’t harm people or the environment,” said Scott Downey, Manager of the Pesticides and PCBs Unit in EPA’s Seattle office. “This dangerous family of chemicals accumulates in the body and can be extremely difficult and expensive to clean up.”

During an inspection in 2009, an EPA inspector identified leaks in three PCB-containing transformers. Federal law requires repair, containment or replacement of leaking transformers containing polychlorinated biphenyls, commonly known as PCBs. In addition, the transformers were not properly maintained and lacked necessary labels.

PCBs are known carcinogens and can harm the immune, reproductive, nervous and endocrine systems. Congress banned PCBs in 1979, but they may be present in products and materials produced before the ban including electrical transformers, capacitors, oil used in motors, oil-based paint, plastics and insulation.

As part of the settlement, the company confirmed it has removed the leaking transformers from the facility. The areas where the PCBs leaked have also been cleaned up. The company has also certified it is currently in compliance with all applicable requirements under the Toxic Substances Control Act at each of its facilities.

More information on PCBs can be found here.

From care2.com:

In recent years, many research and news organizations have published reports about the toxicity of Bisphenol A (commonly called BPA). If you’ve kept up on this topic, you know BPA is in many food and beverage containers (including in the lining of metal cans that hold vegetables, soups and beans) and that it’s a potent endocrine disruptor that acts as a hormone in the human body.

In a recent interview published by Yale Environment 360, BPA researcher Frederick vom Saal of the University of Missouri’s Endocrine Disruptor Group provides some no-nonsense information about BPA and harshly criticizes government oversight of this powerful chemical. Here are some quick facts from the interview.

BPA is derived from petroleum. It was approved by the Environmental Protection Agency for use as a food contact material in 1963. There are more than 100,000 chemicals in commerce, but the U.S. government only has regulatory authority over a percentage of those. In the 1970s, it “grandfathered” in 62,000 chemicals—including BPA—through the Toxic Substances Control Act. That means there is basically no regulatory oversight of this chemical. The Food and Drug Administration came out in 2010 and said it agreed with many researchers that BPA is a concern, but that it doesn’t have the authority to ban or regulate it.

BPA has been linked to early puberty, many types of cancer, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, impaired memory, asthma, allergies and low sperm counts. It damages every part of the human reproductive system.

The common rationalization you hear about BPA being in contact with our foods and beverages is that it’s at such a low level, we don’t need to worry. However, vom Saal explained that his team used human breast cancer cells to study estrogen chemicals for their potency, and BPA lit up like a Christmas tree. He says even at extremely low levels, BPA is anything but weak. The chemical industry threatened vom Saal and his research team, asking them not to publish their findings on BPA.

Of studies funded by the chemical industry, 100 percent say that BPA is safe. However, when you look at the entire body of research studies on BPA, 90 percent of non-industry-funded studies find that BPA is harmful to humans.

The clear message I took away from this interview is that we have to protect and educate ourselves and each other. No government agency is going to make sure the products on grocery store shelves are safe. Please pass this information on.

To learn more about BPA, check out the following resources (the first link is the complete interview with vom Saal):

• Is There Poison in Our Food? Concerns About BPA
• Eating Fresh Food Drastically Reduces BPA Levels, Study Finds
• Plastics: What’s Dangerous, What’s Not
• China Leaps Ahead of U.S. With BPA Ban

We will keep you informed of any developments.

From iWatch news:

About 21 months ago, a proposed list of widely used chemicals that may pose health risks landed at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget for review.

It’s still there.

An attempt by the Environmental Protection Agency to create a “chemicals of concern” list — part of the agency’s larger plans to improve what administrator Lisa Jackson has called an outdated and dysfunctional system for regulating toxic substances — remains stuck in the OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA).

The proposal has sparked heavy resistance among industry groups, some of which have met with White House officials and argued that releasing the list could harm the economy. By executive order, OIRA should finish such reviews within 90 days — or, in some cases, 120. Instead, it’s had the EPA list for 638 days — and counting.

“The reason is political pandering,” said Rena Steinzor, a law professor at the University of Maryland and president of the Center for Progressive Reform. “OIRA is a politicized place where rules go to die.”

OMB spokeswoman Meg Reilly said in an emailed statement that the office doesn’t comment on regulations under review, but “it’s not uncommon for review periods to be extended for regulatory actions that require additional time for consideration of public comment and analysis by OMB and all the affected agencies.”

Since OIRA received the proposal on May 12, 2010, it has hosted eight meetings about the list — six of them with companies and industry groups. By comparison, OIRA officials have met once with public health and environmental groups and once with staffers for Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg and Sheldon Whitehouse, sponsors of legislation to reform regulation of toxic chemicals.

Big chemical companies seem most worried. ExxonMobil, for instance, argued that two of its chemicals used to make plastics flexible and durable shouldn’t be on the list. Other chemical industry powerhouses — from Dow Chemical Company to BASF Corp. and SABIC — have weighed in.

In a statement, the American Chemistry Council, the chemical industry’s main trade group, said: “We are concerned that EPA is creating a list of ‘chemicals of concern’ for potential regulatory action, without establishing consistent, transparent criteria by which these chemicals are selected. … It is OMB’s job to closely review the proposed action and consider any negative economic impact; we appreciate that officials are taking the time they need to fully study the matter. Failure to fully review such agency proposals undermines public and private sector confidence in the regulatory process and can seriously harm American innovation and jobs.”

Though OIRA hasn’t released the EPA list, the office has indicated that it includes Bisphenol A, found in many plastic products and believed to interfere with the hormone system; a group of eightphthalates, found in many plastics and cosmetics and believed to alter development of the male reproductive system; and certain polybrominated diphenyl ethers, used as flame retardants in many products and believed to cause thyroid problems and hamper brain development.

An EPA spokesman did not respond to requests for comment.

The rule itself would do little more than alert the public that the EPA believes certain chemicals may pose health risks and is trying to gather more information. But the U.S. Chamber of Commerce complained in a letter to OIRA that the regulation would amount to “blacklisting” of these substances, which could lead to “market disruptions and litigation.”

The Chamber also argued that even creating a list was “a tectonic shift in EPA policy” and should be suspended until EPA lays out specific grounds for evaluating whether a chemical “may present an unreasonable risk” — the standard for inclusion on the list.

Steinzor noted, however, that the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act specifically grants the EPA the authority to create a list of troubling compounds. Companies are “screaming bloody murder,” she said, because they fear a backlash from concerned consumers and worry further regulation of named chemicals could follow.

In the more than 35 years since Congress passed the law, known as TSCA, the EPA hasn’t used its power to flag chemicals of concern. The current proposal is part of the agency’s attempt to make the most of its authority under TSCA, which has faced fierce criticism from environmental groups and some in Congress as out of date and ill equipped to address risks from the vast array of industrial chemicals now in use. Perennial attempts in Congress to overhaul the law have failed.

Soon after taking over as EPA administrator, Jackson signaled that the agency would focus on improving regulation of toxic substances. “Assuring chemical safety in a rapidly changing world, and restoring public confidence that EPA is protecting the American people is a top priority for me, my leadership team, and this Administration,” she said in a 2009 speech.

But many of the agency’s efforts, such as the “chemicals of concern” list, have encountered resistance — including from within the administration. “A very disturbing pattern has developed with OIRA’s review of EPA proposals to better ensure chemical safety:  Long delays — far in excess of the mandated 90 days — have become routine,” Richard Denison, a senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, said in a statement.

When OIRA does release the list, it still won’t be official. The public will get to weigh in, and the EPA can fine-tune the rule. Then it goes back to OIRA for another review.

We will keep you informed of any updates from the EPA.

From Environmentalexpert.com:

If anyone is thinking big penalties under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) are a thing of the past, think again. On February 7, 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that Dover Chemical Corporation has agreed to pay a $1.4 million civil penalty for the unauthorized manufacture of chemical substances at facilities in Dover, Ohio, and Hammond, Indiana. The settlement resolves alleged violations of TSCA premanufacture notice (PMN) obligations for the production of various chlorinated paraffins. According to EPA, Dover Chemical produces the ‘vast majority’ of chlorinated products sold in the U.S. As part of the settlement, Dover Chemical has ceased manufacturing short-chain chlorinated paraffins (SCCP), which have persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) characteristics. More information is available online.

According to the proposed settlement agreement, which was lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, EPA’s December 15, 2009, notice of violation alleged that Dover Chemical manufactured ‘new’ chemical substances while failing to comply with TSCA’s PMN requirements.

While Dover Chemical denies all alleged violations, it agreed to pay $1.4 million, as well as the following compliance requirements:

• Defendant shall not manufacture or distribute in commerce any chemical substance composed of a SCCP or combination of SCCPs, unless and until the particular SCCP or combination of SCCPs has been added to the TSCA Inventory or exempted from the TSCA Inventory requirements pursuant to TSCA and its implementing regulations; and
• Defendant shall not manufacture or distribute in commerce any chemical substance composed of a medium-chain chlorinated paraffin (MCCP), long-chain chlorinated paraffin (LCCP), or a combination of MCCPs or LCCPs, for which a new PMN is not submitted within 30 days of the effective date of the consent decree, unless and until the MCCP, LCCP, or particular combination of MCCPs or LCCPs, has been added to the TSCA Inventory or exempted from the TSCA Inventory requirements pursuant to TSCAand its implementing regulations.

The proposed settlement agreement is subject to a 30-day public comment period and approval by the federal court. It is available online.

We will keep you updated with future proceedings.